This has nothing to do with the engineers. It's a decision made at the top management level Jobs and Ives.

For most consumers glossy is the best option. Consumers are more likely to watch movies, etc than anything else on their computers. Also, unlike laptops, you wont be lugging your imac out in the sun anytime soon, so there really is no incentive for the additional complexity of adding a matte screen option.

On the other hand, professional designers, or people in graphic related jobs cannot buy the imac. But that is what the mac PRO is for...

In sum, I think its a reasonable decision to offer the matte option on the macbook pro and allow people to attach a monitor of their choosing to the mac pro, and leave the consumer options all glossy.

For most consumers glossy is the best option. Consumers are more likely to watch movies, etc than anything else on their computers. Also, unlike laptops, you wont be lugging your imac out in the sun anytime soon, so there really is no incentive for the additional complexity of adding a matte screen option.

On the other hand, professional designers, or people in graphic related jobs cannot buy the imac. But that is what the mac PRO is for...

In sum, I think its a reasonable decision to offer the matte option on the macbook pro and allow people to attach a monitor of their choosing to the mac pro, and leave the consumer options all glossy.

1. Consumers also suffer from reflections, the fact they don't recognise what the problem is is irrelevant. As is the spurious suggestion that they are the ones who will be watching movies (video editors anyone?) not web browsing, or trying to read text documents and emails through the reflections.

2. How does NOT putting the glass on which is an extra, adds to the weight and complexity of fittings etc make for "additional complexity"?

3. How come it is possible to choose screens on the MacBook following your logic?

I gave a local costing on the iMacs, it might interest you to know that the already heavy pricing on Mac Pros is increased an additional 38.9% in Australia*. Not that that is relevant if it constitutes a hardware combination the customer does not want.

It is like saying if you don't like the obstructive sunshades in your VW Golf, which obscure your view, you can always buy a Rolls Royce.

* I corrected this after recalculating the latest figures on the Australian Apple website. Apple used to overcharge a whopping 67% on a fully configured Mac Pro. Now it is a uniform 38.9% right up the line. Still way too much.

For most consumers glossy is the best option. Consumers are more likely to watch movies, etc than anything else on their computers. Also, unlike laptops, you wont be lugging your imac out in the sun anytime soon, so there really is no incentive for the additional complexity of adding a matte screen option.

On the other hand, professional designers, or people in graphic related jobs cannot buy the imac. But that is what the mac PRO is for...

In sum, I think its a reasonable decision to offer the matte option on the macbook pro and allow people to attach a monitor of their choosing to the mac pro, and leave the consumer options all glossy.

Where do you get $800/hr? It's $100 per GB which is a huge time saver, keeps the average person from getting screwed on price by the average online website, and gives then them the peace of mind of an encompassing warranty.

I thought the price of the upgrade was $300, but still, it's a lot.

The cost of 4GB SO-DIMM outright from a reputable retail company is less than $100. Maybe the original 2GB is $50, so you have a $150 difference because the additional cost to Apple for the bigger memory can't be much more than $50. It doesn't take 15 minutes to install the memory and handle the paperwork too. So that's $600 an hour, assuming a fairly pedestrian installation time.

WiMAX?(which won't be enabled on the iMac)
Hardware H.2.64 decoding
Lower power usage (not a big selling point in a desktop)
Smaller chip and subsequent MoBo
Blu-ray HDCP support on chip
Can use Integrated GPU for Blu-ray playback
Robson 2.0 (2nd version of Turbo memory)
DDR3 Ram
Intel GMA X4500 (3 versions)

Is that correct?

So, to all the people cursing Apple for not releasing the Santa Rosa/Penryn iMac. is this a welcome upgrade that Apple jumped to Montevina/Penryn before Intel even officially releases the chip? Or is there other things ot complain about?

I don't think the Penryn was much of an update anyway, its biggest benefit is power consumption (not much there either), the increased speed was negligible at best.

They need to update the title, but that doesn't mean AI writers need to go back to elementary school over this little thing. The Apple front page was still giving top billing to the iPhone SDK for at least two hours after the iMac was updated in the Apple store. So it was correct at the time the story was posted.

IMO, it's a need vs want situation. The 8800 will out perform, but only the buyer can say if it's worth the extra bucks to HIM.

True, but he already said he doesn't play games, which is about the only significant benefit, one that I don't see worth paying the extra $1000 for the stated uses. Even for core image / core video stuff, the 8800 isn't a very good performer compared to lesser chips.

If the conventions of the 2600 in the last generation hold, is the thinking that they've got an 8800M GT in there, downclocked? I'm really curious what the video card situation is going to be with this model, because there's not a mobile version of the 8800 GS that I'm aware of and I think we're all pretty certain that there's not a desktop GPU in there. If they put in an 8700M GT then they can fuck right off.

I'm not going to play games or burn movies.I'll willuse for itunes,internet,photo's and maybe some home movie editing.I would like to know if I would benefit with 8800 gs other than gaming?

For that, i would say buy the Mac Mini, put 2 gigs of RAM in it and a bigger hard drive, and buy an external monitor. On the tasks you mentioned, you won't notice a speed differeenc, especially for browins the web or internet. Home movie editing, in iMovie, runs very well on the Mac Mini, and i have done hours of video on it. Just make sure you get a big hard drive, weather internal or external.

Any idea why Apple did not bump the Mini? Do you think it will come in the next few weeks, or will they slip it into WMDC? (surely they have better announcements to make?) .....

Any news or speculation welcomed!

I think the Mac mini will get updated after the MacBook gets updated so the Mac mini isn't more powerful than the MacBook. With Intel pushing to discontinue "older" platforms sooner than they have been, I have a feeling the Mac mini will skip Santa Rosa and move straight to Montevina.

Yes, for a start you have the conversion around the wrong way, you divide by 0.935.

There is an Australian/USA Free trade agreement in place. To my knowledge there is no customs tariff.

As the goods are ex China and Australian ports are closer to Chinese ports than even the US west coast, I fail to see where there are extra costs involved.

There will be insurance on USA shipments as well so your calculation is double dipping.

The GST has been removed from the calculation to square up the comparison, as the US Apple site does not include USA taxes.

If there is a pro-rata extra cost in freight and insurance that does not explain the radically different price markups for the higher end products and extras. Freight actually wouldn't vary as in most cases the weight of different RAM or HD would not change and the box is the same size.

This is Apple charging whatever it feels it can get away with and shifting profits away from Australia and back to the USA head office. Our previous government was complicit in writing soft laws that prevent parallel or grey marketing of imports to prevent this sort of exploitation.

The so called FTA with the States has opened us up to the kind of abuse that Canada has suffered, where our competitive products are blocked in the US market, whilst the USA does whatever it wants in ours.

True, but he already said he doesn't play games, which is about the only significant benefit, one that I don't see worth paying the extra $1000 for the stated uses. Even for core image / core video stuff, the 8800 isn't a very good performer compared to lesser chips.

What $1000? The 8800 choice over the Radeon 2600 is an additional $150.

The cost of 4GB SO-DIMM outright from a reputable retail company is less than $100. Maybe the original 2GB is $50, so you have a $150 difference because the additional cost to Apple for the bigger memory can't be much more than $50. It doesn't take 15 minutes to install the memory and handle the paperwork too. So that's $600 an hour, assuming a fairly pedestrian installation time.

It is $300 from 1B to 4GB. That is $100 per additonal GB.

The time it takes a repair shop or factory to upgrade RAM is irrelevant. You aren't looking at it from the average comsumer's POV.

Think about 65yo widow buying a Mac. Is she going to pay an extra $100 for 2GB and have it delivered as is or is she going to spend hour upon hour reading forums to find the best places to find quality, cheap memory? Is she then going to want to get out a tiny screwdriver and install the memory herself just to save $70 that will drawn out over the entire use of the computer? Is she going to print out the instructions for replacing/adding memory and hope she oes it right the first time? This is not what the average person wants to do. EVER! The average person doesn't want to overclock their processor, change out GPU when a new one comes out or add neon lights to their case to "pimp it out". They just want a simple system that is reliable and will allow them to do the tasks they need it do.

BTW: that is an actual case above of a recent switcher I know. I told her why 2GB of RAM would be better than 1GB and that she could always upgrade later. She opted out of 4GB at the time and went for 2GB.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Griffin or some other third party company should create a matching hood and anti-glare film for the iMac to reduce glare from lights and make it more usable by graphics professional.

Like in the old days of the original G3 iMac when an aniti glare attachment was made
by 3M.
Is the glossy screen needed in order for Apple to get a higher environmental rating? Because it really sucks big time if you have any light source behind you. That must also be the reason for the black racoon border - to help your eyes stay focussed due to the glare factor distraction.

For most consumers glossy is the best option. Consumers are more likely to watch movies, etc than anything else on their computers. Also, unlike laptops, you wont be lugging your imac out in the sun anytime soon, so there really is no incentive for the additional complexity of adding a matte screen option.

?? Apple went from glare to glossy with G3, G4 iMacs for that very reason. Who wants to watch movies when you have to constanly draw the shades, turn off the lights??
I think glossy all about getting a better environmental rating only.

I was going to let it lapse at this time, but, hopefully, just ONE more point.

The industry today has fewer choices in this regard. As I've mentioned before, the smaller manufacturers of pro level monitors have mostly disappeared. Even Barco, whose monitors I employed at my own company no longer makes graphics models. They now specialize in hi end medical, and other industries.

Because of that, we have less variation in what we can get for this purpose.

The other reason has to do with marketshare. I know some people don't understand marketshare, so they consider it to be unimportant, but it is all important.

What I mean is that when I was doing my work, starting in the latter '80's, there was no consumer market as such. Because of that, most monitors were expensive, and sold in fairly small numbers.

A small company could ask for a specialized tube, and get it, because their share of expensive monitors was fairly high. Their demands were important.

But, starting in the mid '90's, when consumer computer sales really took off, cheaper monitors became much more important than hi end versions. This disparity in pricing became much more pronounced, with top models costing over twenty times what the average monitor cost.

But, with tubes still being the primary source, it was just a matter of getting a different tube, which was easier to do.

But, after tubes began to disappear, even companies like Barco, which had no problem charging about $15,000 for their top models, found getting their spec'd tubes to be too expensive, and dropped them.

The problem with LCD's is like the problem with CD's vs Lp's. The technology to manufacturer Lp's is one in which you could buy a couple of machines, and you were in business. CD's require a vast, extremely expensive plant, though it has come down in price over the decades.

LCD manufacture requires vast numbers of screens to be made exactly the same way. It's really tough to have a small manufacturer get a specialized screen in a number that's too small a percentage of marketshare, even if the number would dwarf the old crt model's sales. The factories cost billions. The glass used is very expensive, and a small company simply can't get in the ground floor.

What this all means is that even the high end graphics user these days has their choices constrained by the manufacturing process, and that has been for matte screens, mostly because the older LCD's weren't that bright, and reflections were a really big problem. Anti-glare coatings were too expensive, and so matte was much cheaper to produce. Most of these screens go for consumer use.

That's beginning to change (matte vs gloss). But, of course, what people are used to is what they prefer.

If it's glossy, or if it's matte. It can be hard to dissuade someone otherwise, I suppose, including myself.

But, in going back to the '70's, when I started out in doing some IQ work for a large professional lab, the color correction system they had purchased used a very expensive 20" 640 x 480 monitor ($6,000!) with a glossy screen that was used in a dark room. There was a choice for a very expensive matte upgrade, but the images were not presented well with it.

Dark rooms and glossy screens were standard for many years for the highest end work, and anyone who does not know that, simply doesn't have the background to comment on anything other than the newer situation, which is not considered to be ideal. But, even for the newer monitors, dim, or dark rooms are still preferred, though most people these days would rebel at the notion. You still need a 5000% corrected viewer to look at prints properly, and a grey wall infront of you, with the lights not impinging on the monitor screen, and of the right color.

I'm not suggesting, that for home use, one must go through all of these gyrations. But, as even matte monitors suffer from bad seating, lighting, and overall placement, glossy ones don't require that much more of a shift.

Now, some people are very sensitive to reflections, and some like to THINK they are. Your milage will vary.

I see the rainbow from DLP chips, but I don't let it bother me. I consider my Tv to be superior in every way that matters, and I'm not about to go to an inferior design to eliminate the occasional eye blink long effect. I feel the same way about glossy screens.

Get real, people. The US economy is hosed. People can't afford $1200 for a computer. Apple is bucking trends so far by selling more machines then God, but the bubble will burst. I hope Apple realizes this soon (perhaps with a new Mini) before HP, Dell, Acer, and everyone else learns from the recent 'clone' news and releases sub $1000 mini towers that are OSX ready. And don't tell me about the current Mini. If I want a weak machine, I'll look for a P4 in the garbage. We need a sub-$1k mac that can push 1080p, 7.1, bluray, and have a remote control, and Apple will finally be the company to make HTPC mainstream.

Get real, people. The US economy is hosed. People can't afford $1200 for a computer. Apple is bucking trends so far by selling more machines then God, but the bubble will burst. I hope Apple realizes this soon (perhaps with a new Mini) before HP, Dell, Acer, and everyone else learns from the recent 'clone' news and releases sub $1000 mini towers that are OSX ready. And don't tell me about the current Mini. If I want a weak machine, I'll look for a P4 in the garbage. We need a sub-$1k mac that can push 1080p, 7.1, bluray, and have a remote control, and Apple will finally be the company to make HTPC mainstream.

Get real, people. The US economy is hosed. People can't afford $1200 for a computer. Apple is bucking trends so far by selling more machines then God, but the bubble will burst. I hope Apple realizes this soon (perhaps with a new Mini) before HP, Dell, Acer, and everyone else learns from the recent 'clone' news and releases sub $1000 mini towers that are OSX ready. And don't tell me about the current Mini. If I want a weak machine, I'll look for a P4 in the garbage. We need a sub-$1k mac that can push 1080p, 7.1, bluray, and have a remote control, and Apple will finally be the company to make HTPC mainstream.

This past quarters results refute your claims. In the last quarter Apple has grown faster than the computer industry at large. Posting record profits while selling premium priced computers.

Analysts predict we have weathered the worst of the economic slowdown and the situation is beginning to show signs of recovery. Many companies that were expected to have a slow down have actually shown a growth in revenues and profits. One important and very good sign is the value of the dollar is beginning to bounce back.

I was going to let it lapse at this time, but, hopefully, just ONE more point.

The industry today has fewer choices in this regard. As I've mentioned before, the smaller manufacturers of pro level monitors have mostly disappeared. Even Barco, whose monitors I employed at my own company no longer makes graphics models. They now specialize in hi end medical, and other industries.

Because of that, we have less variation in what we can get for this purpose.

The other reason has to do with marketshare. I know some people don't understand marketshare, so they consider it to be unimportant, but it is all important.

What I mean is that when I was doing my work, starting in the latter '80's, there was no consumer market as such. Because of that, most monitors were expensive, and sold in fairly small numbers.

A small company could ask for a specialized tube, and get it, because their share of expensive monitors was fairly high. Their demands were important.

But, starting in the mid '90's, when consumer computer sales really took off, cheaper monitors became much more important than hi end versions. This disparity in pricing became much more pronounced, with top models costing over twenty times what the average monitor cost.

But, with tubes still being the primary source, it was just a matter of getting a different tube, which was easier to do.

But, after tubes began to disappear, even companies like Barco, which had no problem charging about $15,000 for their top models, found getting their spec'd tubes to be too expensive, and dropped them.

The problem with LCD's is like the problem with CD's vs Lp's. The technology to manufacturer Lp's is one in which you could buy a couple of machines, and you were in business. CD's require a vast, extremely expensive plant, though it has come down in price over the decades.

LCD manufacture requires vast numbers of screens to be made exactly the same way. It's really tough to have a small manufacturer get a specialized screen in a number that's too small a percentage of marketshare, even if the number would dwarf the old crt model's sales. The factories cost billions. The glass used is very expensive, and a small company simply can't get in the ground floor.

What this all means is that even the high end graphics user these days has their choices constrained by the manufacturing process, and that has been for matte screens, mostly because the older LCD's weren't that bright, and reflections were a really big problem. Anti-glare coatings were too expensive, and so matte was much cheaper to produce. Most of these screens go for consumer use.

That's beginning to change (matte vs gloss). But, of course, what people are used to is what they prefer.

If it's glossy, or if it's matte. It can be hard to dissuade someone otherwise, I suppose, including myself.

But, in going back to the '70's, when I started out in doing some IQ work for a large professional lab, the color correction system they had purchased used a very expensive 20" 640 x 480 monitor ($6,000!) with a glossy screen that was used in a dark room. There was a choice for a very expensive matte upgrade, but the images were not presented well with it.

Dark rooms and glossy screens were standard for many years for the highest end work, and anyone who does not know that, simply doesn't have the background to comment on anything other than the newer situation, which is not considered to be ideal. But, even for the newer monitors, dim, or dark rooms are still preferred, though most people these days would rebel at the notion. You still need a 5000% corrected viewer to look at prints properly, and a grey wall infront of you, with the lights not impinging on the monitor screen, and of the right color.

I'm not suggesting, that for home use, one must go through all of these gyrations. But, as even matte monitors suffer from bad seating, lighting, and overall placement, glossy ones don't require that much more of a shift.

Now, some people are very sensitive to reflections, and some like to THINK they are. Your milage will vary.

I see the rainbow from DLP chips, but I don't let it bother me. I consider my Tv to be superior in every way that matters, and I'm not about to go to an inferior design to eliminate the occasional eye blink long effect. I feel the same way about glossy screens.

I'll settle for even lighting and color, and I like the glossy screen.

If the conventions of the 2600 in the last generation hold, is the thinking that they've got an 8800M GT in there, downclocked? I'm really curious what the video card situation is going to be with this model, because there's not a mobile version of the 8800 GS that I'm aware of and I think we're all pretty certain that there's not a desktop GPU in there. If they put in an 8700M GT then they can fuck right off.

Your right,I couldn't find any performance reviews on the 8800gs to do a comparison with the 2600 pro.Do they even have a 8800 gs model?

If this was going to be my main computer I would put out the extra money.I'm just tired of the usual issues with Microsoft.So i figured I'll use my pc for gaming and burning movies(14min to burn a movie with pc) and use the mac for the rest.

Get real, people. The US economy is hosed. People can't afford $1200 for a computer. Apple is bucking trends so far by selling more machines then God, but the bubble will burst. I hope Apple realizes this soon (perhaps with a new Mini) before HP, Dell, Acer, and everyone else learns from the recent 'clone' news and releases sub $1000 mini towers that are OSX ready. And don't tell me about the current Mini. If I want a weak machine, I'll look for a P4 in the garbage. We need a sub-$1k mac that can push 1080p, 7.1, bluray, and have a remote control, and Apple will finally be the company to make HTPC mainstream.

Not an issue for most. A $1,200 necessity that will last several years, be used my multiple family members in many cases and still have a resale value when you go to upgrade isn't a tough decision for most.

Consider that computers are more used than ever by the public and that prices have fallen even though inflation has brought that average price of good up. I recall when a computer was not a common household appliance, cost $10K easy and the the mortgage was 15%.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Analysts predict we have weathered the worst of the economic slowdown and the situation is beginning to show signs of recovery. Many companies that were expected to have a slow down have actually shown a growth in revenues and profits. One important and very good sign is the value of the dollar is beginning to bounce back.

Er, no!

We're just beginning to enter the worst of the recession. It wasn't even agreed upon that we were IN a recession until last month.

The estimate is that this recession will last longer than the average 8 months for recessions that has been true since WWII. Perhaps a year. Hopefully, we will be coming out of it shortly after the election.